<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1987 (9) TMI 163 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73285</link>
    <description>An exporter who had not exercised the earlier policy options could elect under para 209 of the Import Policy 1980-81 to be governed by that policy in toto for import replenishment, and restrictions drawn from Appendix 3 could not be superimposed where the relevant appendix governing electric fans was subject only to Appendix 4. On that basis, winding wires could be imported without the gauge restriction. By contrast, para 15 of the 1976-77 policy did not permit an exporter to retain full cash assistance and also claim additional replenishment, because the scheme required a corresponding adjustment between the two benefits. The separate claim under para 15 therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=111564" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (9) TMI 163 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73285</link>
      <description>An exporter who had not exercised the earlier policy options could elect under para 209 of the Import Policy 1980-81 to be governed by that policy in toto for import replenishment, and restrictions drawn from Appendix 3 could not be superimposed where the relevant appendix governing electric fans was subject only to Appendix 4. On that basis, winding wires could be imported without the gauge restriction. By contrast, para 15 of the 1976-77 policy did not permit an exporter to retain full cash assistance and also claim additional replenishment, because the scheme required a corresponding adjustment between the two benefits. The separate claim under para 15 therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73285</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>